Author
Topic: Gun Fails (Read 41621 times)

Okay, so this is not guns, per se. It is constitutional civil rights. It turns out the NSA is collecting all of our phone call data and all of our emails. It is then handing information over to the DEA and Justice Department.

So, this is, as one prosecutor says in the SF Gate article, a "bright line Fourth Amendment violation". I mention this because one of the main arguments gun nuts advocates have for their right is "to prevent tyranny". As I've discussed here with Dante and several others, that's just fantasy.

These news items relate because what is tyranny but the abrogation of our rights? It turns out the only right gun advocates care about is the right to own a gun. All the other rights, which actually matter more in a democracy, are more or less irrelevant to them. The guns vs tyranny argument is just an ego-stroking justification they use but have no intention of fulfilling. Otherwise they would literally be up in arms over this.

I read that same story this morning, screwtape, and of course it pisses me off.

I have a friend who, back in the late 80's was talked into selling one illegal amphetamine pill to an undercover cop (because the guy kept asking and was driving him crazy. He was a pot user, but he'd never sold anything before.) He was arrested and put through all sorts of grief, though he did manage to avoid prison. He was on probation with all the inconveniences involved for a number of years. And is of course will be considered a felon for life.

Anyway, another friend, who is a bit higher on the social scale, is good friends with local attorneys and judges and such. He was told that my friend was arrested because federal monies were available to law enforcement jurisdictions but that had to catch some bad guys first. And my little town in Montana didn't really have any. So that had to make one up.

The irony here, given the topic of this discussion, is that the thing that pissed my screwed friend the most was that he lost his freedom to own a gun until after the probation period was over, and he loved hunting. That bothered him more than anything else.

Logged

It isn't true that non-existent gods can't do anything. For instance, they were able to make me into an atheist.

NPR: Chicago has been plagued by gun violence. One weekend last month nearly a dozen people were shot and killed.

Quote

Ondelee Perteet and his mother, Detreena, at their home in Chicago. In 2009, 14-year-old Ondelee was shot in the jaw at a birthday party on Chicago's West Side. The bullet severed his spine, paralyzing him from the neck down. His doctors told him that he would never walk again, but three years later, he is walking with the help of crutches.

^^^^That is so sad. This kid and his mom will be dealing with that every day for the rest of their lives.

Gun promoters seem to forget that not everyone who gets shot is a bad guy, and not everyone who gets shot dies. Far more will be disabled and dependent on family, friends and the government for the rest of their lives. Some will be in constant pain; some never be able to support themselves or to contribute to society. That means that someone else has to take care of them. Add in the cost--financial as well as emotional-- of all that.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/17/1230442/-GunFAIL-XXXI"In Alabama, a new law went into effect on August 1st which allows employees to bring their guns to work. For those wondering how long it would take for Alabama employees to start accidentally shooting one another at work, the answer is at hand: 12 days."BAAAAHAHAHAHA!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/17/1230442/-GunFAIL-XXXI"In Alabama, a new law went into effect on August 1st which allows employees to bring their guns to work. For those wondering how long it would take for Alabama employees to start accidentally shooting one another at work, the answer is at hand: 12 days."BAAAAHAHAHAHA!

A few lives here and there is worth it to keep that once in a life time person from coming into your area.

I agree those are both large contributing factors. Another problem would be the ease with which Chigagoans can acquire guns from nearby states.

Sometimes I observe new parents. Often times their parental philosophies do not correspond or one parent is just not as consistent as the other. The child goes to one parent for a treat and is denied. So the child goes to the other and is rewarded. Thus, one parent undermines the other.

I wonder whether the rampant corruption in Chicago might be related somehow as well. I don't know much about it, just speculating.

Quote

Another problem would be the ease with which Chigagoans can acquire guns from nearby states.

It's not quite that simple. Under federal law, you are required to make firearms purchases in the state that you live in, and if there's a gun in another state that you want to buy, you have to have it transferred to a dealer who's licensed in your own state, then handle the transfer thru your state's dealer in accordance with both your own state's laws and the federal laws. A Chicago resident can't just waltz into a gun shop in Detroit and buy a gun. I'm having to deal with this in Maryland right now myself, and it's quite a hassle. (Not to mention an expense.)

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

A Chicago resident can't just waltz into a gun shop in Detroit and buy a gun.

Perhaps. I'm not sure of the exact laws. However, if I am not mistaken, and I may be, they can waltz into a gun show in Indiana and buy a gun and no one would be any the wiser. Or they can buy a gun from a private owner in Illinois, again without any form of notification. Neither scenario is regulated in any way, as I understand.

A Chicago resident can't just waltz into a gun shop in Detroit and buy a gun.

Perhaps. I'm not sure of the exact laws. However, if I am not mistaken, and I may be, they can waltz into a gun show in Indiana and buy a gun and no one would be any the wiser. Or they can buy a gun from a private owner in Illinois, again without any form of notification. Neither scenario is regulated in any way, as I understand.

GIYF. ;-)

For example:

Quote

Who needs a FOID card?

Unless specifically exempted by statute, any Illinois resident who acquires or possesses firearm or firearm ammunition within the State must have in their possession a valid Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) card issued in his or her name. Non residents are not required to have a FOID card. New Illinois residents have sixty calendar days after obtaining an Illinois driver’s license or Illinois Identification Card to obtain a FOID card.

..........

Does Illinois have a waiting period for firearm purchases and does it apply to private sales?

Yes. Illinois law requires withholding the delivery of a concealable weapon (i.e. a handgun) for at least 72 hours and a rifle, shotgun, or other long gun for at least 24 hours. This applies for gun dealers and private sales.

There is no FOID verification at an out of state gun show or buying from a private seller. It is essentially an honor system. And since a gun registry is tantamount to fascism in the eyes of many gun owners, there is no way to track whether someone sold a gun.

The FOID only works if the only place a Chicago resident could get a gun were a licensed gun dealer. But that is not the case.

There is no FOID verification at an out of state gun show or buying from a private seller. It is essentially an honor system. And since a gun registry is tantamount to fascism in the eyes of many gun owners, there is no way to track whether someone sold a gun.

The FOID only works if the only place a Chicago resident could get a gun were a licensed gun dealer. But that is not the case.

Well, yes, a private seller in Illinois could sell a handgun to someone else without checking on their FOID or waiting the three days mandated by law for transferring the gun -- but that would be illegal. I thought we were discussing legal gun sales.

As to gun shows in other states, yes, you are correct -- it is essentially an honor system. The question of how many criminals get their guns at such shows is, as you may imagine if you don't already know, hotly debated. In any event, the exemption to the background checks applies only to people who sell guns on relatively rare occasions... if you were to sell guns at such shows in any kind of volume, you would be considered to be a "gun dealer" under federal law and would therefore not be exempt from performing the background check.

It's murky. I haven't looked up the case law about this kind of thing, but I'd hazard a guess that there have been cases where someone privately sold, say, a dozen guns in a year and was charged with selling guns without a license, and who pled not guilty on the ground that he wasn't a "gun dealer" as the law defines it.

Personally, the whole thing makes me uneasy, and I do feel fortunate in that I've never had to deal with selling a firearm. In a weird way, though, I think I'd feel more comfortable doing it here in Maryland, which requires private sellers to perform all the same paperwork, background checks, and so on that a regular gun store has to do. It's a hassle, but on the other hand, as long as the red-tape-ridden procedure exists, it also gives me a lot of protection if I ever do sell one of my guns and get accused of any wrongdoing in doing so.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Well, yes and no. My point was in response to Odin. He was saying gangs and the drug war were The Problems in Chicago. I agreed they were problems, but there was more to it than that.

I was pointing out that there are areas where the law is completely unenforceable or inapplicable. I am sure there are plenty of otherwise law-abiding people in Illinois who have guns but no FOID. And if the whole point of the gun laws is to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them, then the laws are incomplete.

I was pointing out that there are areas where the law is completely unenforceable or inapplicable. I am sure there are plenty of otherwise law-abiding people in Illinois who have guns but no FOID. And if the whole point of the gun laws is to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them, then the laws are incomplete.

You're kind of arguing our point for us. Since folks who break the laws, by definition, don't follow laws, more laws are not the answer. If I sell a gun to an out-of-state person, I am breaking the law unless the transaction is completed using an FFL. No amount of new laws would change that.

The only "gun show loophole" that exists, as far as I can tell, is that I can buy a long gun at a local gun show from another resident of my state, and there is no background check. The seller is charged with ascertaining, to the best of his or her abilities, that I am not prohibited from owning the long gun - not a convicted felon, insane, etc. If I buy a handgun, I am required to have a pistol permit or concealed carry license. In that case, I have already been subjected to a comprehensive background check.

The law that would have to be passed to change the above would be to subject all sales at gun shows, say within the confines of the gun show grounds, to background checks. More comprehensive changes would require that all private sales go through FFLs and some sort of background checks. As to the former change, if I didn't want to go through the check at the show, and it was still legal to buy a long gun direct from a resident, I could just arrange for a later meeting outside the gun show grounds.

As to Chicago's problems - why should it be harder for someone in, say, rural Wyoming to buy a hunting gun or even a self-defense gun, just because Chicago has a gang problem?

Of course, most gun deaths are suicide, so it's difficult, if not impossible, to figure out how many of those suicides would be prevented were it not for guns, because obviously some, if not many, of those suicides would be successful using other means.

You're kind of arguing our point for us. Since folks who break the laws, by definition, don't follow laws, more laws are not the answer. If I sell a gun to an out-of-state person, I am breaking the law unless the transaction is completed using an FFL. No amount of new laws would change that.

No, I'm not arguing your point for you. I'm arguing for better laws that have different requirements and are uniform from state to state. I am arguing for laws to establish mechanisms for enforcement that make it possible to find out when someone has broken the law. You guys act like it is impossible to improve the situation. It's not.

Quote

The only "gun show loophole" that exists, as far as I can tell, is that I can buy a long gun at a local gun show from another resident of my state, and there is no background check. The seller is charged with ascertaining, to the best of his or her abilities, that I am not prohibited from owning the long gun - not a convicted felon, insane, etc. If I buy a handgun, I am required to have a pistol permit or concealed carry license. In that case, I have already been subjected to a comprehensive background check.

You only seem to half understand the part of this you want to understand. That is a law that puts the entire requirement for adherence on the buyer. It is essentially an honor system. Where else in the world do we do that? If you want perscription drugs you go to a regulated pharmacy with a regulated prescription. You don't show up and they just sell you whatever you want, assuming you have a script and if you don't, well gee, criminals will be criminals.

That is a gigantic loophole that makes it so easy to break the law. It is not that more laws are needed. It is that this law is written stupidly. There is only a requirement in 14 states for background checks at gun shows.[1] Why? Why not make it a felony to sell to someone who does not have a permit or does not pass a background check? Why should you not have to prove you can own a gun before you buy it?

This seems so obvious to me. I don't understand why anyone argumes. It strikes me as rather obtuse.

Quote

I could just arrange for a later meeting outside the gun show grounds.

As to Chicago's problems - why should it be harder for someone in, say, rural Wyoming to buy a hunting gun or even a self-defense gun, just because Chicago has a gang problem?

Oh for fuckssake, whining and hyperbole isn't an argument. And last I checked, gangs are not outfitted with hunting rifles. Most gun crimes are carried out with handguns.

When I was considering buying a gun I researched the guns I could get. I wanted a 12 gage autoloader, a tactical gun for home defense. It comes with an 8 shot or 5 shot magazine. When I found out the 8 shot was considered and assault weapon in my state, and not available to the general public, I was a little miffed. Why shouldn't I be able to have this, goddammit? Realistically, 5 shots is more than what I would need. But because I could not have the 8 shot, I wanted it all the more.

I think this is the basis for all pro-gun arguments. Gun owners are not thinking about felons, or the mentally ill, or the idiots. They aren't thinking about how to make the laws work. They are not thinking about the general public or their neighbors' kids. They are just thinking about the toys they want and the possibility of them being forbidden. Kinda selfish if you ask me.

That is a gigantic loophole that makes it so easy to break the law. It is not that more laws are needed. It is that this law is written stupidly. There is only a requirement in 14 states for background checks at gun shows.[1] Why? Why not make it a felony to sell to someone who does not have a permit or does not pass a background check? Why should you not have to prove you can own a gun before you buy it?

How would this be enforceable? I mean, with a car for instance, if you want to drive it for any length of time, you need to register it, or face the wrath of the law when you get pulled over for not having plates, which would certainly happen eventually, if not immediately. But with a gun, not so much. ESPECIALLY if the gun in question was bought with the purpose of criminal intent.

Not that I disagree. I'm all for background checks and eliminating the loophole, but it only keeps the honest people honest.